linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v9 2/3] x86/mce: Add per-bank CMCI storm mitigation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB60835BC38ECD8F1CC382100FFC8CA@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 18:03:29 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        "Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com" 
        <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 2/3] x86/mce: Add per-bank CMCI storm mitigation

> and you're saying
>
>	mce_poll_banks and mce_banks_owned
>
> are disjoint.
>
> That's what you mean, right?

Yes. A bank is one or the other bitmap, but not both.

> Because if so, yes, that makes sense. If the sets of MCA banks polled
> and handled in the thresholding interrupt are disjoint, we should be ok.

Yes.

-Tony